waitforufo Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 How the hell is this anything like the industrial-military complex? Are you unfamiliar with the word "akin"? Eisenhower specifically warns... The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Notice that he doesn't warn about big oil. He is specifically warning about the corruption of science by a gravy train of federal funding. Matt Ridley just released an excellent essay on the topic. http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Are you unfamiliar with the word "akin"? Quite familiar. I know that akin means "something like", hence my question. Notice that he doesn't warn about big oil. He is specifically warning about the corruption of science by a gravy train of federal funding. That's the part that completely misses the point. There's the implication that funding is only forthcoming if a specific result is obtained, and shows an incredible lack of insight into how and why research is conducted. But it does make for a convenient narrative. The military gravy train includes congress giving the military things they don't want, simply because a congresscritter wants to bring money into their district or state. In the very next sentence, Ike says "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." Gosh, that's been a real problem. There's nothing that says "captive of a scientific-technological elite" like today's GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Notice that he doesn't warn about big oil. He is specifically warning about the corruption of science by a gravy train of federal funding. No, he isn't. He's warning against the influence of the big military and industrial concerns on everything the federal government does - including funding science. The corruption he is warning against is from the military/industrial complex - which includes the big oil companies, the Koch brothers, Halliburton and Bechtel and the like - not the Federal government. And that source of corruption right now is funding the denialists, the Republican Party,, the wingnut welfare system and think tank sinecure setups, and the rest of your "sources". That includes the journalist with his zoology degree whose essay on GWPF you linked. Note that Ridley agrees that anthro CO2 is driving a current global warming - his disagreement is only in the rate of warming to be expected and the consequences of it (and acidification, etc). In that respect he is in direct disagreement with most of the distinguished geriatrics and wingnuts in that foundation, which has a history of publishing stuff like this: "In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that - 9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil "prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers. " Edited November 5, 2015 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 There are two warnings in the speech. One is the military/industrial complex. The other was that public policy would become captive of a scientific-technological elite. Here is the quote again. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. Why did he say "equal and opposite danger" if he was speaking of the same thing. He gave two warnings. Why is the equal and opposite danger ever present? Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. Why have curiosity when you have huge government contracts and science by a consensus of those on the gravy train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I think Ike was talking about having a sensible balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Hang on: there are two gravy trains. One is sponsored by the government (which doesn't have a strong desire to push the debate in either direction) and the other is sponsored by oil. Which on do you trust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 With regard to the two warnings Ike's says this even before mentioning the military/industrial complex. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only. The two he mentions are... 1) The military/industrial complex 2) The scientific-technological elite Two money grubbing pigs trying to dominate public policy to there own ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) There are two warnings in the speech. One is the military/industrial complex. That's the one you picked, so I responded to that one. I pointed out that your preferred sources were all in the pay of the military/industrial complex. Why have curiosity when you have huge government contracts and science by a consensus of those on the gravy train. So far, we have no evidence of a gravy train or huge government contracts pushing any particular consensus - the US Federal money is being used for research, for example, into physical reality anyone else can check. We do have evidence of a gravy train and cushy handouts from big industry to anyone willing to put their reputation on the line and publish garbage in denial of climate change - such as your sources, and their funding - and you can tell that's what it is because it doesn't involve any actual research. The hundreds of millions Exxon has spent combatting public recognition of global warming has bought very little publicly available research, for example. It's been spent on other things, such as supporting the lifestyles of the people publishing your zoologist climate skeptic's little essays. Edited November 5, 2015 by overtone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Did you even read the address? Here is the YouTube if that is more convenient. The static at the beginning disappears after a minute. Two warnings. I did not pick the military industrial complex. I picked the precise place where Ike transitions from his warning about the military industrial complex to that of the scientific technological elite. Akin because both have the same goal of dominating public policy to their own ends. Climate change is exactly the of science and scientific research what Ike was warning us about. The gist of your comments on the essay I posted are covered within that essay. Climate change science will tolerate no heretics. If it did, the research funding would be diminished or cut off. The gravy train must continue at all costs. Edited November 5, 2015 by waitforufo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 There are two warnings in the speech. One is the military/industrial complex. The other was that public policy would become captive of a scientific-technological elite. Here is the quote again. Why did he say "equal and opposite danger" if he was speaking of the same thing. He gave two warnings. Why is the equal and opposite danger ever present? Why have curiosity when you have huge government contracts and science by a consensus of those on the gravy train. The equal and opposite was having science getting money to provide the results the government wants, or the government having to do do whatever science says. Neither one has come to pass. Your bald assertion that there is a huge gravy train lacks any context or supporting argument. It's not true just because you say it. Scientists' jobs aren't going to disappear if AGW wasn't true. There are still very compelling reasons to study the climate. (The military, in particular, has a fairly strong interest in weather and climate. They think AGW is real and are planning for its impacts) Climate change science will tolerate no heretics. If it did, the research funding would be diminished or cut off. The gravy train must continue at all costs. Bollocks, on several counts. Science ultimately follows the data, and we would still fund the research because of natural variations. Even ignoring the anthropogenic part, there is a huge impact in the reduction in arctic ice, for example, and any changes in ocean level, from measured temperature increases. The navy, in particular, needs to anticipate any possible new threats through ice-free shipping lanes and they like to dock their ships, which happens at sea level. If that dock is eventually under water, they are going to be very put out if nobody has planned for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Two warnings. I did not pick the military industrial complex. That still puts your sources firmly in the category of military/industrial complex Ike warned you against - are you correcting for that corrupting influence? You show no sign of being aware of it. Climate change science will tolerate no heretics. If it did, the research funding would be diminished or cut off. That is false. Quite a bit of research forcing the reassessment of models and the "correction" of predictions has been done by researchers still in good standing and still receiving grant money. The predictions of Greenland melt rates, for example, were wildly wrong and shown to be so by researchers still in the field - in fact valued for their contribution. Akin because both have the same goal of dominating public policy to their own ends. I'm not sure what you think the "ends" of climate research are. If those guys primarily wanted money, say, they'd pick a different field entirely - petroleum geology, chemical engineering, something that pays. Climate change is exactly the of science and scientific research what Ike was warning us about. Ike wasn't warning anyone about the dangers of scientific research. Which highlights the worth-repeating fact that your sources are very well funded but do no research - it's almost as if research into physical reality that anyone can check is more difficult to bribe to one's agenda than journalists's articles and TV pundits and think tank essays. Can that be? Edited November 5, 2015 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 That still puts your sources firmly in the category of military/industrial complex Ike warned you against - are you correcting for that corrupting influence? You show no sign of being aware of it. That is false. Quite a bit of research forcing the reassessment of models and the "correction" of predictions has been done by researchers still in good standing and still receiving grant money. The predictions of Greenland melt rates, for example, were wildly wrong and shown to be so by researchers still in the field - in fact valued for their contribution. I'm not sure what you think the "ends" of climate research are. If those guys primarily wanted money, say, they'd pick a different field entirely - petroleum geology, chemical engineering, something that pays. Ike wasn't warning anyone about the dangers of scientific research. Which highlights the worth-repeating fact that your sources are very well funded but do no research - it's almost as if research into physical reality that anyone can check is more difficult to bribe to one's agenda than journalists's articles and TV pundits and think tank essays. Can that be? No I'm not talking about the military industrial complex and neither was Ike in his second warning. Ike's second warning angered scientists at the time of the address. Just google "technological scientific elite". Scientist need money just like everyone else. They live in an environment of publish or perish. To do research, they need grants and funding. When the government gravy train pulls into the station they are more than willing to jump on board. Once on, they will not jeopardize there source of funding. It takes no group of conspirators to bring this about. Just natural human inclination toward self interest. That is why Ike said... The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Again this problem is akin to the military industrial because the corruption by federal money, the gravy train, is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) No I'm not talking about the military industrial complex and neither was Ike in his second warning. Correct. I am talking about it - and trying to draw your attention to it. You are ignoring the problem, which is corrupting all of your sources and leading you to post bullshit from wingnuts on this forum. Again this problem is akin to the military industrial because the corruption by federal money, the gravy train, is the same No, it's not. The military/industrial corruption is by private money, from the military/industrial complex and related interested parties. Your sources are corrupted by Exxon, the Koch bros., and various other wealthy bribers of pundits etc. They are also corrupting your government. That's the problem. That's where you are getting this nonsense about "government gravy train" money supposedly swamping the billions thrown in by financially interested corporate entities. Ask yourself why these hundreds of millions thrown into preventing recognition of the incoming problems from the CO2 boost are never used to finance research. Scientists need money, the fossil fuel industry has billions - why must climate researchers compete for scraps from governments? Edited November 6, 2015 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Again this problem is akin to the military industrial because the corruption by federal money, the gravy train, is the same. It has to exist to be a problem. You haven't shown that it has become a problem. We see corruption scandals all the time with defense contractors — folks leaving government service to go work for them and giving them critical information, bribery and kickbacks. Where is this happening in academia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 6, 2015 Author Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) It has to exist to be a problem. You haven't shown that it has become a problem. We see corruption scandals all the time with defense contractors — folks leaving government service to go work for them and giving them critical information, bribery and kickbacks. Where is this happening in academia? So am I now to assume that you at least agree that Ike warned about the scientific technological elite and not just the military industrial complex? I haven't show that it has become a problem? I provided this essay. http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf Chapter 3 is of particular interest. You don't think James Hanson is getting rich lobbying the government? You don't think subsidies for renewable energy aren't crony capitalism? Solyndra ring any bells? Also NOAA has been in the news quite a bit lately. They are refusing a congressional subpoena. Who runs who? Who is acting like the elite? The people, through congress, made a request, but I guess the technological elite can say f-you we are in charge. Oh yeah, I also provided this. https://www.google.c...uqc3zUS8w0slxQw Subsidized renewable energy operators in the UK are now chomping at the bit for government contracts on diesel engine power generation. The subsidies on offer are so appealing that even solar-power developers, which have recently had their own subsidies cut, are building diesel generation on their sites as a way of maximising their returns. Lark Energy, a solar-power developer, is bidding for subsidies to build 18MW of diesel generation on its Ellough project in Suffolk, for example. Edited November 6, 2015 by waitforufo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) So am I now to assume that you at least agree that Ike warned about the scientific technological elite and not just the military industrial complex? You seem to be confusing basic research with technology. You don't think subsidies for renewable energy aren't crony capitalism? Not without some evidence that crony capitalism is involved. It could be, of course - that's why bribery and influence by corporate interests must be rigidly opposed, and all political activity by corporate interests kept transparent and strictly limited. Solyndra ring any bells? Yeah - corporate rightwing power seekers financing the promulgation of wingnut bs for the confusion of the gullible: Ding! Also NOAA has been in the news quite a bit lately. They are refusing a congressional subpoena. This, instead: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/american-meteorological-society-to-congress-ease-off-noaa-scientists/ Who runs who? Who is acting like the elite? The people, through congress, made a request, but I guess the technological elite can say f-you we are in charge. Lamar Smith is a tool of the military/industrial complex you were warned about (oil and gas division http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001811&type=I) using his power as a committee chair for partisan and personal advantage. He is not "Congress", nor is he representing "the people". The NOAA is not the "technological elite", either. And the individual research scientists whose emails and correspondence Rep Smith wants to dig through for slander material are vulnerable to this kind of intimidation - they are not rich and powerful corporate executives, whose emails and correspondence Smith could not obtain without a warrant and a fight with expensive lawyers. Edited November 6, 2015 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I haven't show that it has become a problem? I provided this essay. http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf Chapter 3 is of particular interest. Fiction can be interesting. Like may parts of your posts, he makes dubious claims but never cites any supporting evidence. You don't think James Hanson is getting rich lobbying the government? You don't think subsidies for renewable energy aren't crony capitalism? That's innuendo, not evidence. Do you have any evidence of either? But I don't think James Hansen has had time to get rich lobbying the government. He's only been retired a few years, and I'm pretty sure he couldn't have lobbied the government while he was employed by it. How much money has he made? Solyndra ring any bells? Yes. It's one of many companies that went bankrupt who happened to have gotten government money. But this is simply more innuendo — you haven't provided a speck of evidence this was cronyism or that anything else improper happened. Businesses fail. Oh yeah, I also provided this. https://www.google.c...uqc3zUS8w0slxQw Subsidized renewable energy operators in the UK are now chomping at the bit for government contracts on diesel engine power generation. Exaggerate much? They mention one company, which is bidding on just over 1% of the power that is mentioned. (18 MW of 1.5 GW) Is that company not allowed to make money, for some reason? Is this somehow an example of scientists dictating policy, like Ike warned us about? Scientist need money just like everyone else. They live in an environment of publish or perish. To do research, they need grants and funding. When the government gravy train pulls into the station they are more than willing to jump on board. Once on, they will not jeopardize there source of funding. It takes no group of conspirators to bring this about. Just natural human inclination toward self interest. I don't think you have actual experience regarding how science funding works, and are just parroting something you read uncritically. Publish or perish may be a pressure in academia, but academic fraud is a much bigger problem. Also, you mention James Hansen, and he wasn't in academia. Government research is a very different process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puppypower Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) The problem I have with the concept of manmade global warming or manmade climate change is, even if this is true, for the sake of argument, this is a unique occurrence in the history of the earth. There is no precedence any other such global manmade event, in the history of the earth. The uniqueness of this event, is similar to a prototype that has only operated once. For example, lit is like running one test on a new drug and then going to market pitching the consensus says this is a miracle drug. In spite of this singular data event, the majority of science is claiming this is a done deal. In contrast, natural global warming and cooling has happened more than once in the history of the earth, allowing science to have data that can draw a real curve allowing science to see deeper trends and complexity, yet anyone who assume natural causes is called a denier. If you have one data point or one data event, you really don't have enough to know how to draw a reality curve, since any curve that touches that one data point might appear to be fine, if it is supplemented with a political spokesman pitching that angle to the masses. But if you have many such points, like natural global warming, political spin does not work as effectively, since the data defines the curve. One can see this effect in the political arena, with third world dictators helping to spin the one data point angle, like experts, while renowned scientists, who explain natural, are driven out by activists and politics. If you look at every prediction that has been made with the angle of the consensus curve, through the one data point, these have not work out with the same level of confidence they are sold. The poles did not yet melt, Antartica is making more ice, the oceans did not rise, the seacoast is still a safe place to vacation, the polar bears are still there, hurricanes in the Atlantic did not get worse and worse. Now the sales pitch are more geared toward longer term forecasts 40-50 years down the line, which is long enough for almost any career in one data point science to run its course before jobs might be cut due to poor predictions. The question becomes should all future science consensus be based on political angles using a unique data occurrence, or should at least two data points be needed to claim a consensus? Edited November 11, 2015 by puppypower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 The uniqueness of this event, is similar to a prototype that has only operated once. For example, lit is like running one test on a new drug and then going to market pitching the consensus says this is a miracle drug. In spite of this singular data event, the majority of science is claiming this is a done deal. So, by this argument, as there has only been one LHC we should ignore all the science from it? If you have one data point or one data event But we don't. We have thousands, maybe millions, of observations over millions of years. But congratulations for coming up with a novel argument. Even if it is even more ridiculous than the usual challenges. it is supplemented with a political spokesman pitching that angle to the masses. The only political spin comes from those denying the evidence. The question becomes should all future science consensus be based on political angles using a unique data occurrence, or should at least two data points be needed to claim a consensus? No it should be (and is) based on evidence. In this area, vast amounts of consistent evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now